Loz

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm with Quids, I think the OP was reasonable and > the jogger sounds like a prick. Sounds like the OP/partner nearly hit the jogger with a car - and doesn't seem to think that to be much of an issue, since he didn't bother to mention it originally. I don't think either party has come out this incident looking good.

>:D

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Numbers, I'm not near a keyboard so can't link at > the mo but throughout the noughties waiting lists > were down and patient satisfaction went up That's true, but was it value for the rather huge amount of money they threw at the problem?

That hardly qualifies as 'threatening behaviour'. Sounds like you got a bit close to him with your car, which he probably considered a bit threatening himself.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Allied to this is the fact that this government is > ideologically using the deficit to decimate the public institutions. That's a little over-emotive, unless you are using the original meaning of the word 'decimate' in relation to budgets. The Tories generally believe in smaller government so, yes, they are using the cuts to idealogically shrink the state. That's really not surprising. I've always considered that Labour spend too much, the Tories too little. As long as you get regular changes of government, it tends to average out reasonably well. Having said that, some reports had Labour planning cuts of about ?9 for every ?10 the Tories have planned anyway.

Bit of a change of MO, though. Sounds like a vague possibility rather than a definite connection.

Didn't know that. How do you pronounce it, buddug?

Do read those advice websites, though. You need to know what you should and shouldn't do to stay the right side of the law.

The ISA idea makes loads of sense provided you can still get your cash ISA and your stock ISA from different providers. Other than that possible issue, a great idea.

After a couple of disappointing attempts, I think ol' George got this one about right. Lots there for business/manufacturing and good stuff for pensions and savings. I thought Miliband's response was pretty poor and didn't make any points about the actual budget, but apparently No 11 failed to provide them with the normal pre-speech copy. Naughty.

Hmm. Or your idea of "not especially noisy or badly behaved" is different to theirs.

Canary Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Buddug > > You are just arrogant, selfish prat! and > You are just disgusting human being Well, Canary, you really come across as a pretty unpleasant person yourself. I'm sure you make an equally wonderful parent.

dv1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In fact when I called an alarm company for a quote they said they would install one, but that they > were a total waste if time and money and they suggested I try another insurance company! Sorry? The alarm company told you their product was a waste of time and money?

Help-ma-Boab posted that yesterday, Pickle. At first glance it seems a reasonable argument, but it actually has quite a few holes, not least the 8 hours more flying time, the satellite ping arc area doesn't seem to fit and the second turn north picked up on radar. Not to mention two more airports capable of handling a 777 being closer.

Alan Medic Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Alan Medic Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Why was he running on the road and why do you > > think he flipped a finger? > > You've speculated about the first bit liz but not > the second. That's a crucial part of the story I'd > have thought. Upon rereading, there does seem to be a bit missing, doesn't there? There's some right barstewards around, but flipping the finger just because someone is 'in the drop-off bay for 30 seconds' seems a little unbelievable.

Really? Japan had maglev trains decades ago (70's I think), but no one else seems to ever picked up on the technology.

I think if you had stopped before hitting send, considered your post and not proceeded with the second paragraph, you might still have held the high moral ground.

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Silly question but do mobiles even work that high up ? Depends how high, but generally not as mobile phone antennas are directional, so not much signal goes up. Also, the aircraft tends to act as a bit of a Faraday cage so weak signals become even weaker. The one things that I'm surprised hasn't been followed up is that I remember that, on the day the plane first went missing, some of the relatives dialled some of the missing people's mobile phone claimed they got a ringing tone. That may indicate that the phone in question had 'logged on' to a cell and location could be narrowed straight away to a few tens of kilometres. Of course, it could also mean the phone company in question gave a ring tone even if the phone wasn't findable.

DulwichBorn&Bred Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This was an interesting read : > http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823 > /did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68- > sq68 That's what I just posted DB&B! Hurumph!

An interesting theory worthy of a Hollywood movie. http://keithledgerwood.tumblr.com/post/79838944823/did-malaysian-airlines-370-disappear-using-sia68-sq68

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Surely the 1% is saved for those who were already > told not to park there but couldnt be bothered to move? Sainsbury's 'fines' are essentially invoices. The 1% is saved for those drivers (note: not car owners) that can be proved in a court of law to have individually entered into a contract with the firm running the parking. No easy task.

Sainsburys is private property, so yes, they can ban whoever they like.

Or just repost it to the end of this thread... http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1241222,page=1

mako Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Why did the manager agree to cancel to the ticket? Probably because in 99% of cases, they can be ignored and not paid.

No, disabled need to be at the front of the store, for obvious reasons. P&C spaces should be at the back. It's the only logical place for them. No responsible parent would want these places in the most dangerous part of the car park.